Sections

George Foulidis, right, the owner of the Boardwalk Pub, arrives at court with his lawyer for his $6-million defamation case against Mayor Rob Ford in Toronto. The judge ruled in Ford's favour.Photo: Darren Calabrese/National Post

TORONTO • An Ontario Superior Court judge has tossed a $6-million libel suit against Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, saying there is “serious doubt” about the credibility of the restaurateur who launched it.

George Foulidis, who runs the controversial Boardwalk Café on prime city land in the eastern beaches area of the city, was suing Ford, then a councillor running for the mayoralty, and another former candidate for municipal office, Bruce Baker.

Basically, the judge found that when Ford said the city’s untendered, 20-year deal with the café stunk to high heaven and smacked of corruption, he wasn’t accusing anyone, merely voicing a suspicion.

Ford made the remarks in a lengthy meeting with the editorial board of the Toronto Sun, though curiously, the newspaper itself wasn’t sued.

And about Baker, who had sent city council a letter from someone else accusing Foulidis of improperly influencing the city to secure the deal, Judge Macdonald said Baker had as a candidate some qualified privilege, was acting in the public interest, and that other comments he made in the letter were covered by the defence of fair comment.

But the judge’s most damning remarks came in a section of the Ford decision where he dealt with Foulidis’ testimony at trial last month.

He noted that another court had found Foulidis “was the person primarily responsible for moving” some of his family’s assets — the finding, upheld on appeal in 2005, was that his family had participated in what’s called a “fraudulent conveyance” — and said Foulidis at first “denied his participation in the fraud.

“He eventually admitted it, reluctantly, after reasons for judgment of this court and further reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal … were put to him,” Judge Macdonald wrote.

The judge concluded Foulidis “attempted to mislead this court about his past fraudulent conduct. Having considered this in the context of the whole of the evidence, I am left with serious doubt about the credibility and reliability of his testimony…”

It was a sharp rebuke to the 53-year-old Foulidis, who had testified he was deeply offended by Ford’s remarks in the Sun and felt his reputation as an honest and reputable businessman had been seriously injured. He even grew teary in the witness stand as he remembered being asked by his young daughter if he had done something wrong.

The judge declined to “infer any connection” between what Ford had told the Sun and Foudlidis’ “assertion that his daughter had asked him a troubling question.”

The lawsuit was always almost as curious as the deal Foulidis won with the city.

As well as the fact the newspaper that published the allegedly damaging words wasn’t sued, the case appeared mischievous.

Foulidis’ lawyer, Brian Shiller, is a partner of Clayton Ruby’s, the lawyer who in another action convinced a court to find that Ford had breached municipal conflict of interest rules and declare his office vacant. That decision is being appealed, and will be argued next week.

Shiller raised the issue himself in his opening statement, telling the judge “Mr. Ford’s office has made statements in the press that this case is about politics. They have gone so far as to suggest that my law firm has some sort of agenda to attack Mayor Ford.

“This case is not about politics,” Shiller snapped. “Suggestions to the contrary are nothing more than baseless rhetoric.”

Certainly, Judge Macdonald found the case wasn’t much about the law, either.

As for the Boardwalk Café deal, it was finally inked in the summer of 2010, against the strong recommendations of city staff, who repeatedly urged that the contract be tendered.

Foulidis had fought and lobbied for a renewal of his first 20-year deal with the city, which he won through a request for proposal. The renewal gave him exclusive food-and-beverage rights for virtually the whole waterfront area, including the right to sell suntan lotion and hats, for another two decades.

In a final swipe at the strength of the case before him, the judge made a provisional finding on general damages — apparently, this is common practice in the civil courts — which would apply only if his decision were to be overturned at appeal and a higher court found he was wrong.

Again referring to Foulidis’ “participation in a fraud” in 2004, Judge Macdonald assessed general damages at $20,000, a far cry from $6-million.

Christie Blatchford was born in Quebec and studied journalism at Ryerson University in Toronto. She has written for all four Toronto-based newspapers. She has won a National Newspaper Award for column... read more writing and in 2008 won the Governor-General’s Literary Award in non-fiction for her book Fifteen Days: Stories of Bravery, Friendship, Life and Death from Inside the New Canadian Army.View author's profile